UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ JOSE ALEMAR, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents - Appellees. No. 17-1335 (D.C. No. 1:16- CV-02622-LTB) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , BALDOCK , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Jose Alemar, a state-court prisoner proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district court’s dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

* After examining the appellant’s brief a nd the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argumen t wouldn’t materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment isn’t binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 We liberally construe pro se plea dings. But we won’t act as Alemar’s advocate. See James v. Wadas , 724 F.3d 1312, 131 5 (10th Cir. 2013)

. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 25, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Alemar pleaded guilty to sexual assault on a child, a nd on June 30, 2011, the state court sentenced him to two years to life in prison. On October 20, 2016, Alemar filed a § 2254 motion. On July 5, 2017, the district court denied Alemar’s motion as untimely and dismissed the action. It also d eclined to issue Alem ar a certificate of appealability and denied his request for l eave to proceed in fo rma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. On August 30, 2017, Alemar filed a motion seeking mo re time to file his notice of appeal. The district court denied that motion two days later. On September 20, Alemar filed another motion, this ti me requesting permis sion to appeal. We construed that motion as Alemar’s notice of appeal and issued a jurisdictional showcause order, requiring Alemar to demonstrat e that his notice of appeal was timely. When Alemar failed to timely respond to that show-cause order, we dismissed his appeal for lack of prosecution pursuant to Tenth Circuit Rule 42.1. But Alemar eventually filed a response, so we reinstated his appeal a nd referred the jurisdictional issue to this panel. “We acquire jurisdiction only on the fi ling of a timely notice of appeal.” Watkins v. Leyba , 543 F.3d 624, 626 (10th Cir. 2008). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) provides in pertinent part that an appellant mu st file a notice of appeal “within 30 days after entry of the j udgment or order appealed from.” A district court may grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal if an appellant (1) files a request “no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by [Rule 4(a)(1)(A)]3 expires” and (2) “shows excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). Here, the district court en tered judgment on July 5. Thus, Alemar’s notice of appeal was due on August 4, and any motions for an extension of time were due 30 days after that, or by September 4. 2 See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). Alemar did file a timely motion for an extension of time on August 30. But the district court denied it. And that makes Alemar’s Septem ber 20 notice of appeal—which he filed well past the August 4 deadline—untimely. See Goldwyn v. Donahoe , 562 F. App’x 6 55, 658 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 4(a)(1)(B) where appellant file d timely request for extensi on of time but district court denied that request). Alemar resists this conclusion. First, he points out that he sent a letter to the district court on August 15. And he asserts that the district court interpreted that letter as a notice of appeal. But even if we were to interpret the August 15 letter as a notice of appeal, it would be untim ely because Alemar sent it after the August 4 deadline. Thus, we reject this argument. Alternatively, Alemar argues that even if he failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we should retain juri sdiction because he suffers fr om several health problems that make it difficult for hi m to complete his legal work . But we “have ‘no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements.’” Watkins , 543 F.3d at

2 The 30th day actually fell on Sunday, September 3. But under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(a)(1)(C), Alemar had until th e following weekday— Monday, September 4—to file a ny motion for an extension.4 627 (quoting Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 21 4 (2007)). Thus, because Alemar’s notice of appeal is untimely, we dismis s his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id. (dismissing for lack of juri sdiction based on appellant’s fa ilure to file timely notice of appeal). Finally, we deny Alemar’s motion to proc eed IFP because he fails to present a nonfrivolous argument on appeal. See Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[I]n order to succeed on a motion to proceed IFP, the movant must show a financial inability to pay the required filing f ees, as well as the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in sup port of the issues raised in the action.”).

Entered for the Court
Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge